meat0918:Kahabut: Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point. Seed purchased is seed owned. Screw licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR. It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?

It hasn't been that way for a long long long time.

You're going to fight 100+ years of precedent on seed propagation and selling. It isn't exactly something new that came along with Monsanto.

Blame Burpee if you're going to blame anyone.

To clarify, the blanket statement "Seed purchased is seed owned" is not accurate for all seed. Some purchased seed is that way, a lot of others have non-propagation clauses attached to them, and purchase of said seed is assent to abide by those clauses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 even this allows farmers to save seed. I am not a lawyer, but I think since Monsanto patented their seeds rather than got this different plant intellectual property right is how they are winning these battles. I'm still not sure how they can apply the Plant Patent act to their RR seeds and don't have to abide by the PVPA, but I literally learned about the PVPA about 20 minutes ago.

I feel for the farmers; since it appears they had always been protected until patents started to fly rather than PVPA rights.

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.

I think it's clear enough. Doesn't matter if they haven't done it yet, they reserve the right to do it. And so they will. Because eventually their GMO material will be everywhere, and it will then be worthless. Unless they take drastic steps to protect it.

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.

I think it's clear enough. Doesn't matter if they haven't done it yet, they reserve the right to do it. And so they will. Because eventually their GMO material will be everywhere, and it will then be worthless. Unless they take drastic steps to protect it.

Lawyers, internet wannabe lawyers and fark educated, got news for you, as a FARMER, farmer and ex member of the bar Monsanto is the devil. I cannot grow crops from seeds I harvest from my own land if they have been contaminated by the devils seed. Try and find any farmer who can harvest their own seed! The devil makes you buy theirs every year. This is part of the devils way of controlling farmers. I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen. Monsanto is evil.

trophy1903:Lawyers, internet wannabe lawyers and fark educated, got news for you, as a FARMER, farmer and ex member of the bar Monsanto is the devil. I cannot grow crops from seeds I harvest from my own land if they have been contaminated by the devils seed. Try and find any farmer who can harvest their own seed! The devil makes you buy theirs every year. This is part of the devils way of controlling farmers. I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen. Monsanto is evil.

/get off my porch//ever taste a real tomato?

Thank you. So farking much this.

/not a farmer//owns some farm land///fark monsanto.////got 40 acres out back, mostly wild forest, and some swamp. They will never find the bodies.

trophy1903:Lawyers, internet wannabe lawyers and fark educated, got news for you, as a FARMER, farmer and ex member of the bar Monsanto is the devil. I cannot grow crops from seeds I harvest from my own land if they have been contaminated by the devils seed. Try and find any farmer who can harvest their own seed! The devil makes you buy theirs every year. This is part of the devils way of controlling farmers. I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen. Monsanto is evil.

/get off my porch//ever taste a real tomato?

Yes, they are evil, but I'm calling bullshiat on your "I can't grow stuff because of Monsanto", and "Monsanto makes you buy their seed".

trophy1903:]I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen. Monsanto is evil.

Starts with your neighbors. Wouldn't they be the evil ones for planting the Monsanto seed? Are they evil because they want higher yields? Aren't you polluting their GMO RR crops with your pollen as well?

Teiritzamna:As to whether they could sue Monsanto for pollution of their crop - i am not entirely sure. Proximate cause would likely mean that they could possibly sue a neighboring farmer using Monsanto crops under some state tort, but that to sue Monsanto itself would require some extra showing that Monsanto's crops are more likely to pollinate than others or are specially hard to contain.

I don't think the likelihood of pollination is relevant. Cross pollination by a non-GMO strain does not alter the "no GMO content" status of the resultant seed, while such pollination with a GMO strain blows the ability of the farmer to label his crop as he has attempted to grow it: a real damage.

Kahabut:meat0918: Yes, they are evil, but I'm calling bullshiat on your "I can't grow stuff because of Monsanto", and "Monsanto makes you buy their seed".

Otherwise, how the fark do other farmers grow organic crops??

Why don't you talk to the farmers in Oregon that had their wheat embargoed because some Monsanto seed got mixed in by the wind.

I did.

Prevailing opinion is industrial sabotage, since the seed was never in commercial production, and the seed place then sent it to be destroyed has no idea if they actually destroyed it or where that seed is.

meat0918:Kahabut: meat0918: Yes, they are evil, but I'm calling bullshiat on your "I can't grow stuff because of Monsanto", and "Monsanto makes you buy their seed".

Otherwise, how the fark do other farmers grow organic crops??

Why don't you talk to the farmers in Oregon that had their wheat embargoed because some Monsanto seed got mixed in by the wind.

I did.

Prevailing opinion is industrial sabotage, since the seed was never in commercial production, and the seed place then sent it to be destroyed has no idea if they actually destroyed it or where that seed is.

Another thing. That was conventional and organic wheat, because it hurt our export market, and the wheat ended up sold anyways since nothing else tested positive.

Additionally, the reason it never entered commercial production is because the farmers told Monsanto they would not grow it, because they could not sell it.

Found this on an NPR message board because I knew that this "Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," was pure bullshiat:

On Myth 2, Mr. Charles completely adopts Monsanto's argument on these points and ignores the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in the OSGATA et al v Monsanto lawsuit, like me, that Monsanto has repeatedly accused those contaminated with its seed of patent infringement, including Troy Roush and Dawn and David Runyon.

Monsanto has not denied these cases, and instead points to other cases where farmers were not contaminated. But just because Monsanto sometimes sues farmers who intentionally used their seed DOES NOT mean they've NEVER accused farmers who did not intentionally possess their seed. Further, what's the word "trace" mean when Monsanto says "We won't sue farmers fo possessing TRACE amounts of our seed." Contamination is often unnoticeable unless/until someone tests their seed supply or is contaminated by RoundUp and then notices some of their field doesn't suffer. Thus, contamination can be in much more than "trace" amounts.

Lastly, we asked Monsanto to simply put in writing that they'd never sue us before we moved forward with the case. Instead of simply confirming they'd never sue us, since we want nothing to do with their GE seed, Monsanto instead hired a team of lawyers and accused us, the plaintiffs, of trying to pull a publicity stunt and being liars. I'd much rather be tending to the work on my seed farm than being involved in a lawsuit against one of the biggest, most aggressive companies in the world, but I have to protect myself and this case, where we're only seeking the peace of mind that Monsanto could never sue us for patent infringement (and not a single dime), is the only way to do so.

If Mr. Charles really thinks its a "myth" that Monsanto would ever sue me or my co-plaintiffs or other organic, biodynamic and plainly non-GMO farmers for patent infringement, I'd gladly take an insurance policy from him offering to defend me from any potential accusations in the future. If he's not willing to give me that insurance policy, then he's not willing to put his money where his mouth is, which is exactly what I'm being forced to do today, put my money and my business and my family's future on the line hoping and praying Monsanto never sues me for patent infringement when I get contaminated by their seed, something they do not even dispute will happen due to the prevalence of their seed in the marketplace.

I'm glad the courts are so impressed by Monsanto's binding agreement not to sue people they don't think they can win against, which, in plain English, is what they're bound to. And that seems to be the only basis that they won't sue. If they think they have a case, they will just shockingly decide present a case that it was intentional germination, regardless of the truth. Because that's what they do. They want to be paid when their seed is on a farmer's land, no matter how it got there, and no matter whether the farmer knows it's there or not. And once that farmer knows his field is contaminated, that farmer can't plant the seeds without risking Monsanto's wrath. To grow his own seeds.

The court could have allowed farmers to deliberately opt out of Monsanto's demands to own natural processes, but instead and yet again, the courts have perpetuated Monsanto's ability to to use the courts to intimidate farmers into becoming paying customers to avoid lawsuits.

A lease is not a sale, is not a rental is not a dog. But it's nice to know you are so confused you can't tell the difference.

I want you to distinguish leases from licensing rights.

Show me the "lease" that Monsanto uses. For that matter, show me where licensing rights have any jurisdiction over physical objects sold to a third party. (hint, software is not a physical object, and is never technically sold, only access to the software is sold)

Again, IANAL, but that seems like a clear inability to protect your claim and patent.

I'm more pissed at Monsanto because they have so thoroughly poisoned the waters of this new technology that should and could be used to increase nutrition and yield without relying on as much of the various *-cides we use (pest-, herb-, nemato-, fungi-, etc.), and not pad the bottom line of some agrochemical company.

sprgrss:tlars699:Then the organic farmers' lawyers are stupid, because polluting the environment, inhibiting your productivity, is a very real thing that you can sue over.Organic Non-GMO farmers' corn would be polluted by Monsanto DNA, thus ensuring that the farmers can only sell their inspected goods as inferior product at lower prices- ie GMO corn.

Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.

It's not that I think GMO corn should be banned: genetic-modification is exactly what agriculturists have been doing for centuries, but we're now much better at it. "Golden Rice" would save thousands of children from blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency. High protein GMO potatoes from India could help one's aloo to be alot more nutritious without adding more meat to our diets.

I agree that monoculture or threatening heirloom species is bad, but not from the Frankenfood perspective. We're Frankeneverything at this point. We gotta have a go at these things, there's no way to put it the science back in the box, as it were. However, Corn is Mexican. Remember the shiat another corporation tried to do with India and Basmati Rice. There needs to be something like Europe has with"protective designation of origin".

I wish that scientists could be more like Jonas Salk and just be able to give that shiat away for the sake of the betterment of humanity. I understand the Golden Rice folks did try that and that Greenpeace blocked them. We've got a lot of people to feed. Let's be reasonable. (she says on Fark :P)

1. as long as you don't use Monsanto's genetic markers, you're fine. Wind is going to happen and they do know this.2. You want to sue a company, because they might sue you for cross breeding, but they never have nor ever will?So let's sue them to make sure that they don't sue you, before they sue you, but they never have nor have they planned on it?

That makes absolute sense.

I understand what the farmers are trying to deal with and I understand what they are trying to do. But for everyone's sake, at least let them try a lawsuit before you decide to countersue them. That might actually be helpfull to everyone involved.

1) the Supreme Court denied to hear the case. This isnt a ruling, they generally deny to hear +99% of cases.

2) this was a suit by organic farmers suing Monsanto to preclude them from suing farmers in the future for inadvertant infringement (i.e. wind based distribution) .

3) As Monsanto hasn't brought such a suit, the organic farmers had no standing to sue. There was no controversy (farmers were asking the court to prevent Monsanto from doing something Monsanto wasn't doing).

4) There is really no new or interesting law here, so of course the SCOTUS passed.

I may hate Monsanto too, but Jesus, this is a serious non-story here

Pretty damn much. Don't get me wrong, Monsanto IS a collection of scum and villainy the likes of which are rarely seen outside Wallstreet trading floors, and with their own genetics labs to boot, so they might actually have a secret lair with pod people planning to take over the world, but THIS story is a lot of Sturm und Drang about nothing*...

*Yes, Virginia, Hubie went with proto-Romantic German lit coupled with Shakespeare reference over the obvious Gibsonesque "style over substance." I blame the Almost Human thread...

SquiggsIN:Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress".

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.

That's the worst part about most lawyers. You all think you're smarter than the rest of us because you're in the DELIBERATELY-CONVOLUTED PROFESSION of law-making.

I'm also an engineer. That makes me even more technical and pedantic.

After going to engineering school and being around nothing but engineers for a few years I decided I didn't want to be around assholes like you all the time. Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.

Oh, come now. Is that the most self-righteous you can be? Because I've got a sneaking suspicion that the bar is actually much, much higher in your case.

Really, as much as I'd like to agree with you (Monsanto does, after all, makes it so easy), I would hate myself in the morning.

notto:trophy1903: ]I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen. Monsanto is evil.

Starts with your neighbors. Wouldn't they be the evil ones for planting the Monsanto seed? Are they evil because they want higher yields? Aren't you polluting their GMO RR crops with your pollen as well?

Would you support their right to sue you if you do?

Who was growing their first? You or your neighbors?

Are the genes of organically-grown, heritage tomatoes patented? I did not know that. If they're not, then it's not really a level playing field or a fair argument, is it?

Stepping away from the genetic angle, try this parallel. If I, an organic farmer, dump some of my compost into your your non-organic garden patch, your crop is still the same thing you started after when you take it to market. If, on the other hand, you dump a sack of your chemical fertilizer into my garden, my product is no longer marketable as being "organic." Not a perfect comparison, but in the ballpark I hope.

I've kept up with most stories associated with agribusiness for a long time.

Monsanto is one of the most evil companies on the planet.

I don't know what has to happen to get more publicity on what is going on with our food system. We have fewer and fewer companies controlling more and more of our supply and their goals generally have profit above safety or fairness. Do we wait until every plant on the planet is patented? I think Monsanto would love to spread their GMOs to the point they can sue you for the crabgrass in your yards.

monsanto is an asshole, and you are right to say that the concentration of food production is bad for everyone (except the companies that maintain that centralization).

Stepping away from the genetic angle, try this parallel. If I, an organic farmer, dump some of my compost into your your non-organic garden patch, your crop is still the same thing you started after when you take it to market. If, on the other hand, you dump a sack of your chemical fertilizer into my garden, my product is no longer marketable as being "organic." Not a perfect comparison, but in the ballpark I hope.

I can't sue the fertilizer company in your scenario either, so yea, a great comparison.

gaspode:Monsanto apparently already entered a binding agreement not to sue anyone over unintentional inclusion, and would certainly fail should they ever try to claim against someone over such a thing anyway.

Why should they fail? They have tons of money, and their agreement only pertains to farms with <1% contamination.

sweetmelissa31:gaspode: Monsanto apparently already entered a binding agreement not to sue anyone over unintentional inclusion, and would certainly fail should they ever try to claim against someone over such a thing anyway.

Why should they fail? They have tons of money, and their agreement only pertains to farms with <1% contamination.

They will never ever succeed in a case in which they try to sue someone for genuinely unintentionally being contaminated with their crops. All the money in the world wouldnt change that. Im not THAT cynical about the courts sorry.

They WOULD succeed in a case where someone acquired some of their crops by any means and then deliberately cultivated/bred them into a crop. This is what has actually happened and will happen again.

I would like to emphasise that I deeply despise this aspect of law and would see IP law hacked almost to the ground in my ideal world, but these laws are not really GM or monsanto related, they are much older and completely perverse.